Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Toronto's downtown is substantially bigger than Boston's downtown.
I think Toronto's downtown is probably larger than that of Boston, but don't think that's particular relevant. In any case, we aren't talking a major difference.
I think it's been pretty clearly demonstrated why the older cities with the larger pre-auto fabric generally have better urban cores. Western first world cities forgot how to build urbanity roughly around the Great Depression, so you can basically judge urban quality by the state of the city around WW2.
Everything built since that has been anti-urban or, at the least, a poor substitute for prewar form, even in the top-tier NYC and Paris type cities. Toronto, because it developed later, and really at an unfortunate time, cannot really hope to replicate the same type of neighborhoods, when that era has passed.
This is, in part, why Montreal, a smaller, poorer city, with a smaller core, has a pretty substantially higher quality core. Boston, like Montreal, cannot compare to Toronto's condo canyons and ever-expanding construction zones, but has high quality core neighborhoods that just aren't found in Toronto.
The largest continuous stretch of tall buildings in Boston is about 0.5 miles. There are a couple of stragglers beyond that.
Boston is actually zoomed in more, Toronto's image is very old, there are many missing buildings and the south core is no longer parking lots. Nonetheless.
Just north of the main core, Toronto also has Yonge/Eglinton and North York clusters. You can see them in the distance in that video. Formidable skylines in their own way, each rivaling Boston's. They are part of the City of Toronto and are connected by a continuous stretch of urban development along Yonge.
Quantifiable metrics? Like downtown populations? 15,000 for Boston downtown, 37,000 for greater Boston Downtown vs 250,000 for Toronto's downtown.
Buildings? 810 buildings, 333 high rise, 64 skyscraper class for Boston, vs. 6,946 buildings, 2,466 high rise, and 553 skyscraper class for Toronto.
You have an odd definition of "on par".
You're right, they're not on par:
Boston GDP 382.46 Billion dollars
Toronto GDP 302 Billion dollars
I think Toronto's downtown is probably larger than that of Boston, but don't think that's particular relevant. In any case, we aren't talking a major difference.
I think it's been pretty clearly demonstrated why the older cities with the larger pre-auto fabric generally have better urban cores. Western first world cities forgot how to build urbanity roughly around the Great Depression, so you can basically judge urban quality by the state of the city around WW2.
Everything built since that has been anti-urban or, at the least, a poor substitute for prewar form, even in the top-tier NYC and Paris type cities. Toronto, because it developed later, and really at an unfortunate time, cannot really hope to replicate the same type of neighborhoods, when that era has passed.
This is, in part, why Montreal, a smaller, poorer city, with a smaller core, has a pretty substantially higher quality core. Boston, like Montreal, cannot compare to Toronto's condo canyons and ever-expanding construction zones, but has high quality core neighborhoods that just aren't found in Toronto.
Great analysis.
Toronto has a good and vibrant downtown, but it is far from attractive. Toronto really lacks the dense pre-war kind of charming midrise neigbourhoods (back bay, beacon hill kind). It seems to be composed of either 2 storey homes (often even with yards) even in downtown, or those glass towers.
I just hate two story homes everywhere in the city centre of a major metropolis. If there are replaced with 4 storey rowhouses (like below), I would be extremely happy. This is a reason I am never a fan of Toronto from an urban setting perspective.
Skyline has ZERO to do with the quality of an urban core. It's completely, utterly irrelevant.
I think it's more impressive when a city can be really dense without any high rises. I think that really says a lot about an urban core. Look at DC which is about as dense as Philly, Chicago, and Toronto despite not having any high rises.
I haven't really seen D.C. Mentioned at all in this thread so far now that I think about it. I think it is being overlooked/underrated here. Yeah D.C. City limits are small but it's urban core extends outside the city limits much like Boston. DC also has by far the best subway/rapid transit system out of all these cities. There's no contest. DC's subway could probably take on all these others combined.
Plus DC is also expanding their subway system and building a whole new subway line. And by that I mean actual rapid transit/heavy rail and not light rail. I know SF and Toronto are expanding their transit too but they're just building light rail, which is still great, but not the same.
I think I read somewhere here on CD that when other cities and States were investing in highways and expressways during the height of the automobile boom, DC decided to do the opposite and invest in transit. I think that was a really smart move by D.C. And I think it has really paid off and will continue to do so even more in the future.
Skyline has ZERO to do with the quality of an urban core. It's completely, utterly irrelevant.
Bull! A beautiful and dynamic skyline can add a lot to the urban experience of a city's core. It may not be the most important, and maybe not relative to every city, but it definitely is a huge factor in how some people will enjoy and perceive a city's urban fabric and its importance as a major, bustling, prosperous city!
Bull! A beautiful and dynamic skyline can add a lot to the urban experience of a city's core.
How? Tell us, specifically, how street level feel is enhanced by a 50 floor building as opposed to by a 5-10 floor building.
And tell us, specifically, why most of the best urban cores on the planet have few highrises, yet are so vibrant and attractive. Why is Paris probably the most beloved city despite basically no core highrises?
Bull! A beautiful and dynamic skyline can add a lot to the urban experience of a city's core. It may not be the most important, and maybe not relative to every city, but it definitely is a huge factor in how some people will enjoy and perceive a city's urban fabric and its importance as a major, bustling, prosperous city!
This is a good point. I definitely wouldn't say that skylines are completely irrelevant since many of those buildings are used for residential, commercial, office, and recreational purposes which add jobs/density/vibrancy/entertainment all to an area. Also they can create a very scenic + iconic cityscape like Manhattan for example, which definitely does add to the urban experience.
But I don't think you can judge an urban core by its skyline though. Just look at Houston, Dallas, or Charlotte compared to D.C. Or any European city.
I think a true urban core should extend far beyond the skyscraper district(s). NYC is a prime example. NYC urban core stretches far beyond Midtown and Lower Manhattan all the way through Upper Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and The Bronx to the Atlantic Ocean, and even exceeds the city limits into New Jersey and Westchester county. I'd even add the North shore of Staten Island too.
I think it's more impressive when a city can be really dense without any high rises. I think that really says a lot about an urban core. Look at DC which is about as dense as Philly, Chicago, and Toronto despite not having any high rises.
I haven't really seen D.C. Mentioned at all in this thread so far now that I think about it. I think it is being overlooked/underrated here. Yeah D.C. City limits are small but it's urban core extends outside the city limits much like Boston. DC also has by far the best subway/rapid transit system out of all these cities. There's no contest. DC's subway could probably take on all these others combined.
Plus DC is also expanding their subway system and building a whole new subway line. And by that I mean actual rapid transit/heavy rail and not light rail. I know SF and Toronto are expanding their transit too but they're just building light rail, which is still great, but not the same.
I think I read somewhere here on CD that when other cities and States were investing in highways and expressways during the height of the automobile boom, DC decided to do the opposite and invest in transit. I think that was a really smart move by D.C. And I think it has really paid off and will continue to do so even more in the future.
Skylines can add to a big city feel and I enjoy beautiful skylines but If they don't coordinate with great urban fabric they are of little use in a discussion of great urban cores. This has been mentioned. Where do you think Paris would rank on this list??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
